August 28, 2018
Finally, after two years of desperate attempts to destroy Donald Trump the Never Trump crowd think that they hit pay dirt. Oh happy days!
Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump, recently plead guilty to tax laws involving his taxi business, his financial dealings with three banks, and the piece de resistance for the mainstream media, to violating campaign finance laws at the direction of Trump. Bingo! Impeachment! Does Cohen’s guilty plea to violating campaign finance laws actually rise to the level of calling for Trump’s impeachment? Short answer- an emphatic no.
Background
Michael Cohen has made the claim that shortly before the election he and David Pecker the CEO of American Media Inc, the company that publishes the National Enquirer, worked together to suppress damaging claims made by porn actress, Stormy Daniels, (AKA Stephanie Clifford), at the request of then candidate for president- Donald Trump. In October 2016, after the release of the Access Hollywood tapes, Daniels’ agent believed that the timing was ripe to cash in on her clients claim of an affair with Trump which allegedly occurred in 2006. She subsequently contacted Pecker to sell the story. In turn, Pecker, who is a friend of Trump’s, contacted Cohen.
Cohen’s and Daniel’s lawyer struck a deal, requiring Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement in exchange for $130,000. In Cohen’s plea agreement he claimed that this action was directed by Trump to prevent damage to his campaign. Trump claims that he did not know about the payment when it was made. He asserts that he found out sometime later, and reimbursed Cohen from his own money, not campaign funds. Pecker has recently been granted immunity and has supposedly supported Cohen’s claim that Trump knew about the payment at the time that it occurred.
The Facts
A plea agreement is not a confession. In a plea agreement a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in exchange for leniency from the prosecution. In some cases a defendant may plead guilty to a lesser crime that they did not commit. This is called “legal fiction”. An example of this is pleading down a speeding charge by pleading to running a stop sign. Cohen is facing very serious charges. His motive to give the prosecution what they want in exchange for a reduced sentence is great. In addition, Cohen is pleading guilty to lying and committing fraud. Can this man really be trusted to tell the truth when he has something to gain by implicating Trump? Cohen’s credibility is close to zero.
Further a plea bargain does not involve, a judge, jury, evidence, testimony, or a verdict. They therefore should never be used as evidence of someone else’s guilt.
As argued by liberal Alan Dershowitz, renowned Harvard legal professor who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton, a candidate is not barred from donating to his own campaign. Trump contributed $66.1 million of his own money to his campaign, including the $130,000 payment made to Daniels. That the money came from Trump’s personal account and not from campaign funds is a fact not in dispute.
Dershowitz also made the point that it’s not criminal to pay money to someone to sign a nondisclosure agreement, even if the reason for buying their silence is to protect a political campaign. If as Cohen is contending, that the payment was made for the benefit of the campaign, the failure to disclose the payment could be a violation, not the actual payment.
However, candidates, in this case Trump, are not responsible for the reporting of campaign donations. The treasurer of the campaign would be at fault. Failure to report every campaign contribution is not uncommon, and usually results in only a fine. In 2008 Barrack Obama ’s campaign neglected to report almost $2 million in donations. As a consequence his campaign was fined $375,000. This story was barely a blip in the news.
Not incidentally, the nondisclosure agreement between Trump and Daniels was signed on October 28, 2016, only days before the election. Therefore, the reporting of this payment as a campaign expenditure would have occurred after the election, and consequently would have had no bearing on the outcome of the election
Unfortunately it’s not really about enforcing election reporting rules. The objective is to ensnare Trump in a crime to destroy his presidency. Sadly for the Never Trump crowd, after two plus years of investigations, and millions of dollars of taxpayer money, all they have is the hope of getting Trump on failing to report a “campaign” expenditure.
If the Federal Election Committee actually wants to enforce reporting requirements, why isn’t Clinton’s campaign being investigated? Her campaign paid millions to finance opposition research on Trump, which resulted in the infamous Trump – Russia dossier, and yet they never reported any of these expenses to the FEC. Unlike Trump’s payment to Daniels, this money was unequivocally paid from campaign funds with the intent to alter the outcome of the election. Clinton, once again, was given a free pass. Conversely, Trump’s “campaign violation” has many in the media declaring it an impeachable offense.
Incredibly, Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis made some bombshell comments recently, implicating Trump. He claimed that Cohen had information that Trump had prior knowledge of both the Russian hacking of the DNC emails, and the now infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr, and a Russian lawyer and others.
Davis has now retracted those statements, saying that his client has no knowledge to back up his incendiary claims. In keeping with their “fake news” image, CNN, which ran the story, using Davis as an anonymous source, who made the claim that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, has refused to retract the story. Adding to the egregiousness of this shameful reporting is the reporters’ claim, made in the article, that Cohen’s attorney (Davis) refused comment. Davis has recently admitted that he was the anonymous source for this story. This is only one of many times that CNN has reported bombshell news about Trump that turned out to be dead wrong. It’s interesting that these inaccuracies have always been to Trump’s detriment.
Anchors and pundits on CNN complain that Trump is violating the constitutional rights of the press when he criticizes the media. Perhaps if they didn’t call for Trump’s impeachment because of a dubious claim of a campaign violation, and print bombshell anti Trump lies about him, in other words report on Trump in a neutral, unbiased manner, Trump would not be so critical.
